I think that continued generation of short file names is dangerous because
of the ambiguity they create when doing del , etc.It's also pretty archaic.
But I've never had the time to test a system with short names turned off.

Are there any known issues to look out for, besides 16bit apps?


"Ritchie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:b9tlp2$ngpco$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Keith Langmead" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Excellent, thanks. Don't know how I managed to miss that while searching
> > through the KB!
> >
> > Do you know if Windows will generate the short file names automatically
> > after the reboot, or if something needs to be done? I see that once
turned
> > off, existing names are still available, so is the reverse true, and
> > existing folders without the short file names don't get them?
>
> Mark's posted some good advice, if I were you I'd read that carefully.
> BTW, I'm using Version 1.0 (Build 3181) of Wzzip which I think is the
> latest version. I've never had any problems with it, but its probably
> never been used on a short filename disabled system.
>
> --
> Ritchie
>
>

The abiguity issue is that if you do an enumeration of *20*, you might
pick up files that have "20" in their long name, and some files that have
"20" in their autogenerated short name. Doing DEL *20* would delete
a little more than you might expect. Try it with DIR.

The issue goes a tiny ways beyond 16-bit apps. There are a bunch
of 32-bit apps that use *16-bit* installers who will write the autogenerated
short names into the registry. Yuck

I'm in favor of disabling all short names, but there are a ton of popular
programs that get installed this way.


--
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.





"Herb Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OWzOk0%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Richard J. Otter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I think that continued generation of short file names is dangerous
because
> > of the ambiguity they create when doing del , etc.It's also pretty
> archaic.
> > But I've never had the time to test a system with short names turned
off.
>
> What ambiguity? They are unique -- I have never had an accidental
> wild card clash either (that I recall or noticed anyway.)
>
> > Are there any known issues to look out for, besides 16bit apps?
>
> I use a lot of 16 bit apps -- my favorite Grep (easiest to use for simple
> tasks) is an old 16 bit one, so I have to invoke it on my web files like
> this
>
> grep "pattern" files*.ht*
>
> Or else the .html files won't be included with the htm -- .htm* won't
work.
>
>

Various incarnations of NT/Windows2000 (think embedded)
can be installed on FAT16 volumes which don't support LFNs.

--
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.



"Michael Bednarek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:13:27 -0700, "Mark Zbikowski \(MSFT\)"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin:
>
> [snip]
> >The issue goes a tiny ways beyond 16-bit apps. There are a bunch
> >of 32-bit apps that use *16-bit* installers who will write the
autogenerated
> >short names into the registry. Yuck
> >
> >I'm in favor of disabling all short names, but there are a ton of popular
> >programs that get installed this way.
>
> Including Windows, any version? I notice that all files in any Windows
> installation adhere to 8.3, uppercase and all - coincidence?
>
> I also notice that a lot, maybe most, registry entries relating to MS
> products actually use SFNs. I wouldn't go as far as exclaiming Yuck
> (I'm quite fond of SFNs myself), just remarkable.
>
> --
> Michael Bednarek, IT Manager, Tactical Global Management
> Waterfront Pl, Brisbane 4000, Australia. "POST NO BILLS"
> http://mcmbednarek.tripod.com/